Categories

I don’t understand the immigration debate/issue. It seems to me in a world of issues that come in so many shades of gray, this one is clearly black and white (no, not a racist remark). The way I see it, immigration is actually two issues:

1) National security. The first and most important thing in national security is securing the borders. That means patrolling it with such forces as the coast guard, border patrols, etc. For the most part, this should be sufficient. In parts of the border where patrolling isn’t enough of a deterrent to illegal border crossing, building walls, fences, etc. should be employed. That way, we can track the comings of anyone across the border.

This doesn’t mean of course that we don’t want people crossing the border. We just want to know who, when, where, etc. plus have control so if there is someone crossing we don’t want to (ie. drug lords, murderers, terrorists, etc.) we can actually stop them.

2) Immigration itself. From everything I can glean from the debate as it stands today, nobody is saying we don’t want people coming here. Sure, Republicans stress they don’t want them coming illegally, and Democrats call them racists for it (something I really, really don’t understand), but no one is saying they shouldn’t be here, just that they shouldn’t be here illegally.

Immigration reform then presents really only two problems. First, those that are already here illegally. What do we do with them? Do we simply give them amnesty, thereby supposedly rewarding bad (and illegal) behavior? Do we throw them out but let them come back legally somehow? Do we “send them to the back of the line” but put them on a path to legal status?

Second, what to do about actual immigration laws. I’m no legal expert, but I’d say here is where we need to do the most work (aside from securing the borders). We obviously need a sane and reasonable set of immigration laws. These may include such things as quotas (though I doubt we care that much), or at least provisions for quotas in the future should we need them. They should include reasonable requirements that people can actually satisfy without having to marry a citizen, prove the marriage is anything but a legal maneuver, and manage not to have that spouse die for 5-10 years. The process should probably include provisions of legal, productive activity (or at least good faith efforts toward such), and swearing loyalty to the country. This really shouldn’t take more than a couple years to prove the person is law abiding, desiring to work, as loyal as the next guy, etc. Again, I don’t know how that law would work but we need it.

Back to the first issue. Given that our laws are insane right now (and broadly unenforced when it comes to Latinos coming from Mexico), I don’t think it’s right to punish those that have come here illegally, just for the sake of pretending to uphold the law. As Democrats are fond of pointing out, most of these are hard working, law abiding (except for the immigration thing) people who just want a better life. I don’t think granting some variety of an amnesty-like thing to these people is rewarding bad behavior. I’m in favor of it. Of course, “reform” can’t include only this, otherwise we’re left with the same problem, using the amnesty “solution” every 15-20 years.

If we secure our borders, discouraging illegal immigration, give those already here a path to citizenship (not just meaningless hurtles), and provide reasonable immigration laws that will encourage legal immigration, then we might just solve our problem once and for all. And as a benefit, we would stem the flow of drugs and drug related violence that’s swamping our southern border.

It doesn’t seem like such a complicated issue. I’m sure the exact wording of the law will need to be delicate, but I’m sure we can all agree on the principles, assuming of course we actually WANT to solve it (More on that later).

In short, we have a great house and people want in. Let’s just close the windows and open the doors!

I am furious over a discussion I had with a co-worker today, not because of the position she took is wrong, where mine was right. Rather it’s because the position she took is accurate. We were discussion politics, though no particular issue (and I took no sides on any). I stressed the importance of facts and logic, she stressed that actual power comes from manipulating public opinion.

In essence, we’re both right (I’m just a little more right). Because power comes from the people (at least in democracies and republics), in order to have power one must have the support, or control, of the people. There are two basic ways to do this: 1) convince the people their best interests lay with you and your agenda, 2) manipulate the people into following you whether or not your agenda is good for them.

Her argument seemed to say that not only do politicians take option 2 more often than not (something I agree whole heartedly with), but that it’s the “right” option to take. I rather believe that option 2 is destructive and option 1 is the best bet for the long term. Allow me to explain.

If you have a rational agenda and can explain the merits, flaws, and expectations of a particular policy or piece of legislation, then you gain lasting support. People who don’t like the merits or see the flaws as outweighing them will be against it, but those who can live with the flaws or consider the merits worth it anyway will be for it. Plain and simple. Of course, there will always be your base. If you’re on the left, a certain group of leftists will be for anything you do. Likewise, if you’re on the right a certain group of rightists will be for anything you do.

The thing is there’s those pesky independents and swing votes. They’re the ones who decide elections, therefore it’s they you need to be concerned about. If you choose option 2, and your policy turns out to be a disaster, you’ll lose their trust for a long time. However if you choose option 1, and things go badly, you’ll still have their trust because we all saw the outcome as a possibility worth the risk.

Still, I can’t watch a single day of politics without seeing option 2 put to full use, especially when politicians and pundits debate important issues. And I rarely see option 1.

As an example, let’s take a tiny piece of the Health Care Reform law recently passed. While the bill was being debated, those on the right of things claimed “unconstitutional mandate!” It became almost a battle cry. The argument even seemed sound. The left’s response to this? “There’s no mandate!”

So, who do we believe? Neither side provided any facts, references, or anything. Everything was an appeal to emotions, attacks on their opponents, and other more subtle formal fallacies in pithy little sound bites.

If the right had only said: “in section XYZ it states ABC. See? Right there – mandate” we could have known they were right. Likewise if the left had said “in section XYZ it states ABC. See how that’s not a mandate?” it would have settled it. Instead they fight and bicker for months over this issue (and others) without providing one solid fact to hang the argument on.

This is option 2. They don’t talk about the actual tangible expected benefits, the merits of the policy, admitting the flaws and explaining why they haven’t dealt with them. The other side doesn’t do it either. Instead they fill your head with promises of things they want you to believe the policy will do, without really showing how those things accomplish the goal or even how the policy does them. It’s all an attempt to manipulate the people into delegating our power to whomever is most masterful.

And that just makes me sick. If a policy is will do one thing for the country, no amount of hoping or manipulating will make it do another. Likewise, if a policy won’t do that thing, no amount of hoping or manipulating will make it do so. It’s not even a matter of opinion. Certain things WILL bankrupt the country. Others will make it more solvent. Certain things WILL erode freedom. Others reinforce it. Opinion only comes in on whether we WANT the outcome, whether the outcome is good or bad, not what the outcome will be. Only the facts and logic can tell us what the outcome of a policy will be.

Meanwhile, the country languishes while two parties compete to see which set of policies will destroy it while convincing the people one side is the good guys and the other bad. I say they’re both bad!

Until we see more truth in politics (ie. facts and logic), we will never make meaningful progress on any of the major social issues facing us today (and for the last few decades for that matter).